ISIS Shells Israeli-Occupied Golan, IDF Holds Fire

Over the past few years of the Syrian civil war, government and rebel forces have regularly fired shells that landed inside the Israeli-occupied Golan. Most often the shells were fired deliberately (by Hezbollah or Assad loyalists), but often they were errant shots. In most cases, the IDF, in an act of deterrence, would return fire targeting the positions that had shelled Israeli-held territory.

But yesterday, the Israeli army didn’t follow that protocol. Two different rebel groups were fighting for control of a Syrian village just over a mile from the armistice line. The groups contesting the territory were ISIS and the Free Syrian Army/al-Nusra. Several shells overflew their target and landed near an Israeli kibbutz. Instead of firing back, Israel did nothing.

Which raises an interesting question: why? I’ve documented ere the IDF’s ongoing military alliance with al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Walla! reports the firing came from ISIS forces. If this is true, it would indicate the Israeli army is tacitly collaborating not just with al-Nusra (bad enough), but with ISIS (specifically, Saraya al-Jihad) itself. It would mean that Israel is refusing to intervene on behalf even of the most moderate elements of the Syrian rebels, the FSA.

The prospect of Israel aligning itself with the hardest of hardline Islamists, the same ones who only a few months ago beheaded an Israeli (and American) citizen, Steven Sotloff, is beyond bizarre. It makes you realize that Israel’s policies have nothing to do with morality, consistency or even long-term goals (how can an alliance with Islamists be in Israel’s long-term interests?). They are designed to ensure Israel’s shortest of short-term interests. Those who determine Israel’s strategy have determined that they’ll forge a deal with the Islamists because Assad, Hezbollah and Iran are worse enemies. If the Islamists eventually win, then Israel will deal with it.

The friend of my enemy’s mother-in-law is my ?? This super-short-term thinking is like the great corporations which rule the USA deciding that to enhance the corporate “bottom line” for the next 5 years they will refuse to allow the USA to do what’s necessary to mitigate climate change. This appears to be universal thinking among the USA’s ruling oligarchy. But, who knows, the Pope is taling about climate change. Maybe some CEO’s enemy’s mother-in-law is a Catholic.

I don’t see why this is surprising at all – it makes perfect sense. ISIS, FSA, Al Nusra etc. serve Israel’s strategic interests which is the dissolution of Arab states and their degeneration into fragmented, emasculated warring tribes and sects. ISIS is only a militia focused on enforcing Islamic dogma – it does not have and probably will never have the power of a state, lacking any international legitimacy or a surrogate superpower which can supply it with modern weapons. In such situation, the Khalif may brandish his sword and engage in some fiery rhetoric to impress his followers but will be more concerned with maintaining his rule, being well aware that he has no power nor an army to challenge Israel.

You can also rest assured that if by some miracle ISIS gets too strong, Israel will back the opposing forces. The current status quo in which neither side gains the upper hand is ideal for Israel and ISIS can put on its resume the achievement of having dissolved two Arab states that could have challenged Israel and formed a resistance to its regional hegemony, potentially even equalizing the nuclear game. In that sense, ISIS is the best thing that happened to Israel since 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

3 years ago

Famous Flame

@Ahad

” serve Israel’s strategic interests which is the dissolution of Arab states and their degeneration into fragmented, emasculated warring tribes and sects.”

Libya is crumbling and Libyan munitions are being smuggled into Gaza. Terrorists, once confined to their homeland, now roam, at will, and suddenly appear on Israel’s border. Hard to kill splinter groups have formed in the Sinai and attacked Israel. Israel has assassinated Iranian generals, whose troops are now on Israel’s border with Syria.

Once again, you are failing to see the difference between a militia / guerilla group and a state with an army. A small militia from outside the border can at most harass but does not pose a real challenge to a modern army like the IDF, simply because they cannot conquer territory. Even light weapon smuggling into Gaza, while undesirable by Israel, is no more than harassment from Israel’s perspective. Even Hizbolla, which is the best trained militia, cannot challenge Israel’s hegemony, let alone existence, so I don’t see how ISIS or any of those splinter groups can ever amount to any existential threat. A state with modern weaponry and a well supplied army on the other hand can pose a definite threat and even has potential to develop nuclear weapons, which would be a game changer in the Middle East. The choice between the two is clear from Israel’s perspective and the balkanization of the Middle East and its embroilment in a civil war with no end serves Israel perfectly.

You said that, “The prospect of Israel aligning itself with the hardest of hardline Islamists….makes you realize that Israel’s policies have nothing to do with morality, consistency or even long-term goals”.

You are merely, “..only reporting what the Walla! article said “. You are damning Israel as ‘tacitly collaborating with ISIS’, based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

3 years ago

Yeah, Right

I wouldn’t be too confident that “You can also rest assured that if by some miracle ISIS gets too strong, Israel will back the opposing forces.” When it is all said and done Israel’s support for ISIS – however real – runs a very distant second-place to the support given by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It’s THEIR backing that will really decide this, not who Israel decides is “too strong”. or “too weak”. But consider this possibility: the Turks, Saudis, Israelis, and all the assorted small-fry all get their way and a stalwart ally of Iran is overthrown and replaced by a Sunni-friendly puppet government. Hurrah!s all round, and everyone is Hi-Fiving each other and slapping each other on the back with short-lived camaraderie. But short-lived it will be, because however Sunni-friendly and however puppet-on-a-string the newly-minted despot might be, there is still the little matter of all those wild-eyed crazies who will still be milling around inside that territory. All of them armed to the teeth and each and every one of them utterly and completely convinced that THEY and THEY ALONE did this mighty deed. If I were Turkey or Saudi Arabia I wouldn’t want those dudes hanging around inside Syria, precisely because… they’re crazy, man. So as long as they are left hanging around inside Syria they will represent a threat to Today’s Puppet, whom they could easily decide to turn into Tomorrow’s Road Kill. So Turkey and Saudi Arabia will want to get them outta’ there ASAP, but they certainly won’t wish to achieve that outcome by letting all these wide-eyed crazies come back home. Heck, those guys are CRAZY, and letting them come “home” would be way, way worse than leaving them in Syria to be a constant threat to your Puppet Of The Day.… Read more »

If you can read the Hebrew articles, do so. I’m only reporting what the Walla! article said. Not my own convictions. Personally, FSA is almost non-existent in the Golan as far as I know, just as it plays an increasingly smaller role in the Syrian rebellion in general. But I’m not on site & don’t know what happens every day and in every quarter there. So could there be some FSA forces there? Possibly. But I note that they’re not strong enough to fight on their own since they’re allied with al-Nusra, whose forces are far stronger.

I also assure you that if Israel had a choice it would probably ally with FSA. The fact that it doesn’t means FSA isn’t strong enough to warrant Israeli support. Israel doesn’t back losers. Ergo, FSA has a weak, if any presence in Golan.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

3 years ago

AMIT

Is it just me, or Silverstein’s reasonings never make any sense? How can you conclude from the fact Israel didn’t bomb ISIS forces in the Golan – in response to some errant shells that fell in Israel’s territory – that it allied itself with them? Isn’t it *a bit* far reaching?

The much more logical explanation is that Israel sees as its vital intrest to not be dragged into the inner fighting between rebel groups in the Golan. Even in the price of not responding when a morter is misfired into Israeli territory.

much more logical explanation is that Israel sees as its vital intrest to not be dragged into the inner fighting between rebel groups in the Golan

Only one problem with your “theory:” the IDF is intensively involved in the entire Syrian civil war. It’s bombed Syrian targets with war planes at least ten times. It’s assassinated both Syrian and Hezbollah commanders in Syria. Not to mention all the resupply & supporting fire it’s offered to al Nusra forces in the Golan. Israel has dragged itself into the inner fighting in the Golan & elsewhere.

Alternatively, Israel may be delighted with rebel groups fighting among themselves. The more they kill each other, the less energy or motivation they’ll have to attack Israel. The more Syrian blood that’s shed the less Israeli will be shed, or so their reasoning may go.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

3 years ago

Amit

The IDF is absolutely not “intensively involved” in the Syrian civil war. The targets of Israeli air raids in Syria over the last few years were apperantly all special weapon shipments for Hezbollah (aimed against Israel for the “third Lebanon war”), not just any targets. If israel wanted to help the rebels, it could very easily bomb Assad’s runways with few accurate airstriks and deprive his military air support, but it did no such thing. Israel assassinated Syrian and Hezbollah commanders that ploted against it, not just any leaders.
if we want to truly understand Israel’s perception of the Syrian front, it is something more like: Israel gets involved militarily only when its own intrests are at risk. Not for any side in the Syrian civil war. As you yourself said, “Israel may be delighted with rebel groups fighting among themselves” (and I add: between them and the syrian regime\hizbollah) – why the heck would it want to interven and make itself part of this chaos? “good luck for both sides and may they both lose” is slogan for Israel’s view of things.
As for the claim of “resupply & supporting fire ” to al Nusra forces: the evidences this are slim to none. I know you got all excited from the picture showing IDF soldiers and some Islamists rebels infront of eachother in one border crossing, but it shows nothing more than a possible tactical coordination between the two sides controling a border crossing. In the past this tactical coordination was done with the Syrian army through the UN forces stationed there,now there is no UN forces and only rebels so the coordination is apperantly done with them.

@ Amit: It doesn’t matter what or why Israel attacked Syria. States don’t get to say I violated your sovereignty, but I did so for a righteous reason which justifies my violations. ANY violation of sovereignty is impermissible. Israel intervened in Syria with massive air attacks at least ten times. These attacks did serious damage to the Assad regime. Hence, Israel intervened “intensively” in the civil war. I’m not saying Israel doesn’t have certain limits to what it will do. It won’t kill Assad. It won’t send an IDF division into Damascus. These would be seen as egregious interventions by the international community. But it will do pretty much anything short of that which advances Israeli interests. Israel assassinated Syrian and Hezbollah commanders that ploted against it, not just any leaders. And you know who they plotted against how? From Tamir Pardo? From reading the brief prepared before their assassination? In other words, you don’t know nothin’ So stop wasting our time with claims that offer no proof or evidence. Israel gets involved militarily only when its own intrests are at risk. Yes, and Israeli “interests” are defined so broadly as to include anything remotely injurious to Israel. Israel defines its interests laughably and with extreme self-interest. why the heck would it want to interven and make itself part of this chaos? Because Israel’s greatest enemy is Hezbollah & Iran. Since Assad is allied with them both he is Israel’s enemy. Neither Al Nusra nor ISIS are attacking Israel. Hence Israel is happy to intervene in “the chaos” & even to increase the chaos on behalf of the enemies of its enemy (the Islamist rebels). it shows nothing more than a possible tactical coordination between the two sides You say “tactical coordination” and I say “strategic collaboration” and alliance. There’s… Read more »

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

You can adjust all of your cookie settings by navigating the tabs on the left hand side.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.